[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***

[LlcoolJ]

Been mean to ask....

When a batsman is run out on a second run, the first run still counts. Is that a new rule or am I cracking up? ODI/T20 only?

Standard rule.

 

[Wozza]

Standard rule.

Thanks. Proof that I'm going senile.

 

[Gwylan]

Been meaning to ask....

When a batsman is run out on a second run, the first run still counts. Is that a new rule or am I cracking up? ODI/T20 only?

No, that's been the case for as long as I've been watching cricket. And it's for all forms of the game

 

[LlcoolJ]

No, that's been the case for as long as I've been watching cricket. And it's for all forms of the game

We had a match last season, S Yorks v East, where East needed two runs to win from the last five overs.

Their number 10 sacrificed himself on a suicidal attempt to get a second with two overs to go and the scores were tied. Never seen a junior game like it (it was U11s). Spinners on and everyone saving the single.

Ended up in a tie as South got the last wicket with the last ball of the game.

So yes, runs count if completed when there's a run out! [emoji23]

 

[Mellotron]

I think the most important ruling is about the run being awarded if the batsmen have crossed at the time of the ball being thrown. Because until they have crossed the batsmen are deemed to be backing up.
And had 5 been given it would have been a different scenario, because Stokes would have gone to the none striker's end for the next delivery.

As others have said - butterfly effect. If we had won the toss, if we had been given the 4 when it was stopped on the boundary, if that ball hadn't taken a freakish bobble on it's way to Buttler when it went for 4 etc etc etc.

Honestly, for your own sake I think you'll be happier just holding your hands up and saying fair enough, better team won it on the day.

 

[Normal Rob]

As others have said - butterfly effect. If we had won the toss, if we had been given the 4 when it was stopped on the boundary, if that ball hadn't taken a freakish bobble on it's way to Buttler when it went for 4 etc etc etc.

Honestly, for your own sake I think you'll be happier just holding your hands up and saying fair enough, better team won it on the day.

agree with you on the whole, but i'd argue that the two teams were absolutely even on the day, with the luckier team winning! And that's not normally us.

 

[Mackenzie]

agree with you on the whole, but i'd argue that the two teams were absolutely even on the day, with the luckier team winning! And that's not normally us.

Yep two fine teams, and neither of them were Australia.

 

[Mellotron]

agree with you on the whole, but i'd argue that the two teams were absolutely even on the day, with the luckier team winning! And that's not normally us.

Fair point. As you say, we're hardly known for our luck in big sporting tournaments...

 

[One Love]

agree with you on the whole, but i'd argue that the two teams were absolutely even on the day, with the luckier team winning! And that's not normally us.

Not taking into account that the team that won the toss and had a no-brainer decision to bat first had a huge advantage.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

As others have said - butterfly effect. If we had won the toss, if we had been given the 4 when it was stopped on the boundary, if that ball hadn't taken a freakish bobble on it's way to Buttler when it went for 4 etc etc etc.

Honestly, for your own sake I think you'll be happier just holding your hands up and saying fair enough, better team won it on the day.

Not when the worse team on the day fluked a draw.
Getting a bit sick of the likes of Piers Morgan fawning over Stokes.
It's the same when a football team wins on penalties, it's a draw, and England had some extraordinary luck in getting it too.

 

[Mellotron]

Not when the worse team on the day fluked a draw.
Getting a bit sick of the likes of Piers Morgan fawning over Stokes.
It's the same when a football team wins on penalties, it's a draw, and England had some extraordinary luck in getting it too.

Don't you dare lump me in with Piers Moron.

No, when a team wins on penalties, they win, not draw. All that "it's a lottery" stuff is absolute bollocks. We held our nerve and won by the rules of the game. It took massive balls and composure, along with skill. We did it.

As for luck, the toss was massive in this tournament and NZ won it, so immediately they got the biggest slice of luck available on the day.

Re: the ball hitting Stokes' bat, freakish yes but then how about the ball taking a random bobble on it's way to Buttler and going for 4?
The stop on the boundary for NZ where you could clearly see the boundary being moved by his foot, where they refused to look from a better angle?
Numerous wides given to Archer that weren't/the same balls not given as wides for NZ?

There was plenty of luck/bad luck on both sides.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

The ball runs along the ground many times in a game of Cricket, it doesn't often hit the bat of a player running between the wicket and trundle off for a four.
Sorry, I did not even think about comparing you with Morgan, I am just sick of him thinking he won it.
It's just my opinion, I am certainly not anti England cricket, but after that titanic battle from both sides it should have been left as a draw.
I fully understand real England cricket fans would have been hugely disappointed, that is why they are claiming victory.
I feel exactly the same in a massive football game when a team wins on penalties, especially if they fluke the winning penalty, like slipping etc.
And I also thought that after probably the best cricket match of all time that England didn't go straight to the kiwis rather than whooping around Lords.
That's the sort of thing I expect from Aussies (who would have bowled the super over under arm) and Americans
Sorry, it's only my opinion, Cricket can be a draw and that was a draw.

 

[Mellotron]

The ball runs along the ground many times in a game of Cricket, it doesn't often hit the bat of a player running between the wicket and trundle off for a four.
Sorry, I did not even think about comparing you with Morgan, I am just sick of him thinking he won it.
It's just my opinion, I am certainly not anti England cricket, but after that titanic battle from both sides it should have been left as a draw.
I fully understand real England cricket fans would have been hugely disappointed, that is why they are claiming victory.
I feel exactly the same in a massive football game when a team wins on penalties, especially if they fluke the winning penalty, like slipping etc.
And I also thought that after probably the best cricket match of all time that England didn't go straight to the kiwis rather than whooping around Lords.
That's the sort of thing I expect from Aussies (who would have bowled the super over under arm) and Americans
Sorry, it's only my opinion, Cricket can be a draw and that was a draw.

Fair comments all. It was an unbelievably tight game. I'm just loathe to take anything away from our players after a pretty unbelievable performance on a horrendously stodgy wicket. And respect to the Kiwis too, superb effort and top sportsmen, their country should be proud.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Don't you dare lump me in with Piers Moron.

No, when a team wins on penalties, they win, not draw. All that "it's a lottery" stuff is absolute bollocks. We held our nerve and won by the rules of the game. It took massive balls and composure, along with skill. We did it.

As for luck, the toss was massive in this tournament and NZ won it, so immediately they got the biggest slice of luck available on the day.

Re: the ball hitting Stokes' bat, freakish yes but then how about the ball taking a random bobble on it's way to Buttler and going for 4?
The stop on the boundary for NZ where you could clearly see the boundary being moved by his foot, where they refused to look from a better angle?
Numerous wides given to Archer that weren't/the same balls not given as wides for NZ?

There was plenty of luck/bad luck on both sides.

That was more than a bobble!
It turned square!

Freakish as you say.

 

[Gwylan]

The stop on the boundary for NZ where you could clearly see the boundary being moved by his foot, where they refused to look from a better angle?
Numerous wides given to Archer that weren't/the same balls not given as wides for NZ?

That's just bollocks. The fact that he moved the boundary pad with his foot was irrelevant, he'd let go of the ball by then so 2 was the correct decision (as confirmed by the video replay)

And you're just inventing things when you say that wides weren't called for NZ when they were called for England. There were two lines drawn by the side of the wicket that gave guidance as to what was a wide and what was not. I watched the entire match and could tell instantly whether it was wide or now - well before the umpire's call. There was nothing remotely contraversial about it.

Yes, NZ got a massive stroke of luck in winning the toss but England got the rub of the green from then on (as Morgan admitted) so I think it was pretty even.

 

[Mellotron]

That's just bollocks. The fact that he moved the boundary pad with his foot was irrelevant, he'd let go of the ball by then so 2 was the correct decision (as confirmed by the video replay)

And you're just inventing things when you say that wides weren't called for NZ when they were called for England. There were two lines drawn by the side of the wicket that gave guidance as to what was a wide and what was not. I watched the entire match and could tell instantly whether it was wide or now - well before the umpire's call. There was nothing remotely contraversial about it.

Yes, NZ got a massive stroke of luck in winning the toss but England got the rub of the green from then on (as Morgan admitted) so I think it was pretty even.

We never saw the video replay from the angle we needed to. It looked from the imprint like his foot was lightly touching the boundary marker whilst the ball was in his hand. We'll never know either way.

I understand how the lines work, cheers. There were a couple from Archer that were nowhere near wides, yet given as such - commented on by the TMS guys as well. Same for a bouncer that wasn't that high that was deemed so, whilst one of the NZ's quicks balls was ridiculously high (way over shoulder) and not given as such.

I completely agree that the luck was pretty even. That was my entire point(?!) - I was responding to someone saying we had ALL the luck which is patently bollocks.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

That's just bollocks. The fact that he moved the boundary pad with his foot was irrelevant, he'd let go of the ball by then so 2 was the correct decision (as confirmed by the video replay)

And you're just inventing things when you say that wides weren't called for NZ when they were called for England. There were two lines drawn by the side of the wicket that gave guidance as to what was a wide and what was not. I watched the entire match and could tell instantly whether it was wide or now - well before the umpire's call. There was nothing remotely contraversial about it.

Yes, NZ got a massive stroke of luck in winning the toss but England got the rub of the green from then on (as Morgan admitted) so I think it was pretty even.

Concerning the wides, I actually agree with [MENTION=12101]Mellotron[/MENTION], Archer did seem to be (in both the final and preceding matches) called for over head height wides a lot more than other bowlers. I feel all the hype about him being the new fast bowler on the block may have led to greater scrutiny from umpires.

 

[LamieRobertson]

We won

 

[Pickles]

I remember reading once that Ian Botham, upon being giving out by Dickie Bird, walked.

However, when he passed Dickie, he said ' Dickie, that was never out'....

....to which Dickie replied ...' read the paper in the morning, son '.

 

[BensGrandad]

People saying the luck of winning the toss and batting first but didnt Morgan suggest that had he won the toss he would have asked them to bat first.